Honestly, there should be some minimum qualification on running for office, besides being able to breath....

=====================================================

WILMINGTON, Del. – Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."

O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

Coons said her comments show a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution.

The debate, their third in the past week, was more testy than earlier ones.

O'Donnell began by defending herself for not being able to name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees at a debate last week. She said she was stumped because she largely agrees with the court's recent decisions under conservative chief justices John Roberts and William Rehnquist.

"I would say this court is on the right track," she said.

The two candidates repeatedly talked over each other, with O'Donnell accusing Coons of caving at one point when he asked the moderator to move on to a new question after a lengthy argument.

"I guess he can't handle it," she said.

O'Donnell, a tea party favorite who stunned the state by winning the GOP primary last month in her third Senate bid in five years, called Coons a liberal "addicted to a culture of waste, fraud and abuse."

Coons, who has held a double-digit lead in recent polls, urged voters to support him as the candidate of substance, with a track record over six years as executive of the state's most populous county. He said O'Donnell's only experience is in "sharpening the partisan divide but not at bridging it."

Although most people believe the words "separation of church and state" are actually in the U.S. Constitution, the words cannot be found there. Rather, they are words penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter which explains the First Amendment of the Constitution or at least Jefferson’s view of it. The actual words in the First Amendment of the Constitution read as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."

According to what I read above about the exchange, her opponent never said that the words "separation of church and state" were in the First Ammendment. He correctly pointed out what it said, and O'Donnell wasn't listening/can't understand so her response was a confused "You are telling me that is in the First Amendment?"

She is a joke.

Look, since the Republicans are going to gain a bunch of seats in Congress, can we at least get some smart ones in power?

_________________

Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:04 pm

Rich

Phinfever Live!, Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 amPosts: 23200Location: Miami, FL

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

1984phins wrote:

O'Donnell is just stupid.

According to what I read above about the exchange, her opponent never said that the words "separation of church and state" were in the First Ammendment. He correctly pointed out what it said, and O'Donnell wasn't listening/can't understand so her response was a confused "You are telling me that is in the First Amendment?"

She is a joke.

I read somewhere that her ultimate goal is to get a book deal and TV show out of all this. She's not serious about politics.

Quote:

Look, since the Republicans are going to gain a bunch of seats in Congress, can we at least get some smart ones in power?

We will. Most will be better than those who jumped off the far left plank with Pelosi and Reid and then got abandoned by them.

In defense of Palin, if you live in Pennsylvania you may be able to see West Virginia from your backyard.

_________________

Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:48 pm

Rich

Phinfever Live!, Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 amPosts: 23200Location: Miami, FL

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

If you think about it, Coons isn't exactly much better.

The article posted above omits a subsequent exchange in the debate.

Quote:

Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell questioned on Tuesday whether the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state.

The comment came during a debate on WDEL radio with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O’Donnell jumped in. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” she asked.

The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of “whoa” and laughter coming from the crowd.

Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark — likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub — saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.

“Yes,” Coons responded.

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell questioned on Tuesday whether the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state.

The comment came during a debate on WDEL radio with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O’Donnell jumped in. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” she asked.

The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of “whoa” and laughter coming from the crowd.

Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark — likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub — saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.

“Yes,” Coons responded.

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

I think she (rightly) threw a hail mary there. She scored a point. (But does she know them? It doesn't say)

However, I think you and I can agree, Rich, that these comments are getting some press today not just because she made a single gaffe. It is the fact that this is just another example (out of the many) that highlights O'Donnell as being out of her league.

_________________

Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:37 pm

Rich

Phinfever Live!, Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 amPosts: 23200Location: Miami, FL

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

1984phins wrote:

I think she (rightly) threw a hail mary there. She scored a point. (But does she know them? It doesn't say)

However, I think you and I can agree, Rich, that these comments are getting some press today not just because she made a single gaffe. It is the fact that this is just another example (out of the many) that highlights O'Donnell as being out of her league.

Both the Bearded Marxist and the Masturbation Witch are out of their league.

It's actually sad for the U.S. and Delaware that these are the only two choices they have.

Biden Jr. versus Castle would have been a far superior choice.

_________________

Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:44 pm

Rich

Phinfever Live!, Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 amPosts: 23200Location: Miami, FL

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

Think about it guys.... she may have thrown a hail mary, but the guy couldn't even name freedom of speech!!!

That is the most commonly known freedom of not only the 1st Amendment, but the ENTIRE Consitution!

Even being liberal on social issues I was kinda happy to see the rise of the tea party because I think all these politicains are just in it for themselves & their clique & could care less about the average person. I think we need a 3rd party but after listening to the tea party candidates I dont think this is the 3rd party we need. At least the corrupt people we have now at least know the laws (I guess that is how they skirt around them) these candidates just seem to be making this up as they go along. Odonnel , Palin , Paladino & there are others , thier statements are at the point where this is more like a comedy show than an election. We are is some serious stuff here.

_________________2015. Jets & Bills new regimes & no QB. Pats , nowhere to go but down. We come back with best young QB in the game plus we keep the best regime intact. Making of dynasty.

Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:15 am

degs

Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pmPosts: 2493Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

FINesse wrote:

Even being liberal on social issues I was kinda happy to see the rise of the tea party because I think all these politicains are just in it for themselves & their clique & could care less about the average person. I think we need a 3rd party but after listening to the tea party candidates I dont think this is the 3rd party we need. At least the corrupt people we have now at least know the laws (I guess that is how they skirt around them) these candidates just seem to be making this up as they go along. Odonnel , Palin , Paladino & there are others , thier statements are at the point where this is more like a comedy show than an election. We are is some serious stuff here.

I agree about the third party. I want a party for people who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That isn't the Dems. It ain't the Repubilcans. And the heads of the tea party is nothing more than the rightest of the right pretending that they don't have religious ties.

Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:04 am

Rich

Phinfever Live!, Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 amPosts: 23200Location: Miami, FL

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

degs wrote:

I agree about the third party. I want a party for people who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That isn't the Dems. It ain't the Repubilcans. And the heads of the tea party is nothing more than the rightest of the right pretending that they don't have religious ties.

I think you should read up a little more on the Tea Party.

Not the Tea Party Express, which is a sham perpetrated by folks like Dick Armey and Saran Palin. But the true local tea parties.

I think you would be surprised to find many libertarians who want fiscal conservatism and personal liberty make up the core of the tea parties. These are TRUE conservatives, not the religious so-cons that have hijacked the Republican Party base.

The core tea party was begun by Ron Paul supporters, who tend to be secularists that beleive in extreme civil liberties and personal responsibility tied in with smaller government, lower taxes and less entitlement programs.

The core values of the tea parties stemmed from opposing TARP and the bailouts as well as the stimulus and Obamacare.

The religious aspect has inserted itself and threatens to undermine the tea party. Social conservative issues tend to be losers with independents.

_________________

Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:38 am

jammer

Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pmPosts: 7005Location: Topsfield, MA

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

It is very sad that either Coons or O'Donnell will be in office for the next six years. So what if Castle wasn't conservative enough for the Republican primary vote, at least he wasn't an extremist.

As far as that debate, she did score on a technicality but if she wants to start talking about religion in the school system she is opening a Pandora's box for all religions to start coming in and arguing to have their version of whatever topic and it should be taught. Coons should be more embarrassed by not being able to name anything other than freedom of religion.

Palin should stick to rallying voters. Her making a bid in 2012 could be destructive for everyone.

I'll do my best to make sure Massachusetts rids itself of a few extremists in 2 weeks.

Religion & Politics .... do I have some opinions on that but I would probably get carpal tunnel before I am finished typing.

_________________2015. Jets & Bills new regimes & no QB. Pats , nowhere to go but down. We come back with best young QB in the game plus we keep the best regime intact. Making of dynasty.

Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:42 am

degs

Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pmPosts: 2493Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

Rich wrote:

The core values of the tea parties stemmed from opposing TARP and the bailouts as well as the stimulus and Obamacare.

I completely and totally opposed TARP, the bailouts, most of the stimulus and Obamacare, however I cannot get over the Christian Taliban aspect of the party. Too many of the gatherings of the tea party I have read about have been headlined by religious speakers.

Maybe I can't separate the Tea Party from the Express, but it should be their responsibility to make it clear, not the other way around.

On a similiar, I was at a Connecticut gubinatorial debate a few months ago. There was one announced candidate there who didn't seem like he was really running for office. He was just there to promote the Republican party. If you took every 3rd word out of his mouth it went something like this..." Republican, Republican, God, Republican, Sarah Palin, Republican, Tea Party, Republican, Republican, Tea Party." Zealots like that scare people like me away from everything they mention, particularly being affiliated with their political parties.

Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:41 am

Rich

Phinfever Live!, Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 amPosts: 23200Location: Miami, FL

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

degs wrote:

Maybe I can't separate the Tea Party from the Express, but it should be their responsibility to make it clear, not the other way around.

I don't think they have a responsibility to do anything. They are a grassroots movement with no centralized organizational structure, but rather local "parties". They aren't trying to form a third political party.

They are no different than groups like Code Pink, who believe strongly in something and want to create an upswell of change for their issues.

_________________

Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:39 am

degs

Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pmPosts: 2493Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

Rich wrote:

I don't think they have a responsibility to do anything. They are a grassroots movement with no centralized organizational structure, but rather local "parties". They aren't trying to form a third political party.

They are no different than groups like Code Pink, who believe strongly in something and want to create an upswell of change for their issues.

If they want me to vote for their candidates, they have the task (responsibility) to make me think they have the best candidate. If they don't do that, they are losing the votes of people like me who are not fans of the Republican party or the Democratic party.

If I have a misinterpretation of what they stand for, they should clear that up.

Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:50 am

Rich

Phinfever Live!, Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 amPosts: 23200Location: Miami, FL

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

degs wrote:

If they want me to vote for their candidates, they have the task (responsibility) to make me think they have the best candidate.

In several, probably most, of the races, they do have the best candidate. They can't have the best one in every race.

_________________

Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:47 pm

degs

Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pmPosts: 2493Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

Rich wrote:

degs wrote:

If they want me to vote for their candidates, they have the task (responsibility) to make me think they have the best candidate.

In several, probably most, of the races, they do have the best candidate. They can't have the best one in every race.

that is always a matter of opinion

Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:27 pm

Rich

Phinfever Live!, Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 amPosts: 23200Location: Miami, FL

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

degs wrote:

Rich wrote:

degs wrote:

If they want me to vote for their candidates, they have the task (responsibility) to make me think they have the best candidate.

In several, probably most, of the races, they do have the best candidate. They can't have the best one in every race.

that is always a matter of opinion

In this case a substantiated opinion. They are running to get rid of people who voted for all the crap we've been handed over past couple of years.

_________________

Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:31 pm

degs

Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pmPosts: 2493Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

Rich wrote:

In this case a substantiated opinion. They are running to get rid of people who voted for all the crap we've been handed over past couple of years.

Opinion is still just opinion, whether you, I or anyone else agrees with it.It's not written in the Constitution, but we do have freedom of opinion in this country still.

Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:55 am

Rich

Phinfever Live!, Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 amPosts: 23200Location: Miami, FL

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

degs wrote:

Rich wrote:

In this case a substantiated opinion. They are running to get rid of people who voted for all the crap we've been handed over past couple of years.

Opinion is still just opinion, whether you, I or anyone else agrees with it.It's not written in the Constitution, but we do have freedom of opinion in this country still.

I'm sure there's a relevant point in there somewhere.

And following that logic, humans need oxygen to survive.

_________________

Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:01 am

degs

Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pmPosts: 2493Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

Rich wrote:

degs wrote:

Rich wrote:

In this case a substantiated opinion. They are running to get rid of people who voted for all the crap we've been handed over past couple of years.

Opinion is still just opinion, whether you, I or anyone else agrees with it.It's not written in the Constitution, but we do have freedom of opinion in this country still.

I'm sure there's a relevant point in there somewhere.

And following that logic, humans need oxygen to survive.

The relevant point is that just because you have an opinion, that doesn't it make it that everyone has to share it.

But thanks for being so full of yourself that you try to pander to my opinion.

Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:58 am

jammer

Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pmPosts: 7005Location: Topsfield, MA

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

The Tea Party is a movement, not a political party on a ballot. They don't have one unified platform that needs to be explained. You aren't voting for them. If you want to be a responsible voter look at each candidates web page, which should contain their platforms and opinions, research what they've said at recent debates (should be in local papers) and in interviews.

This isn't as much Democrat vs Republican as it is conservative (fiscal, social and sometimes both) vs liberal (same issues). Why else are you seeing several Democrats running campaign ads showing their opposition to Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the policies they have pushed since taking office or position (both in 2006 and 2008). You either vote to continue trying to spend your way out of the current situation and adopt a more socialist-styled, public approach or to cut back on spending and aim to re-energize the private industry. Either way there are going to be those happy with the results and those who think the other approach is better.

Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:17 am

Rich

Phinfever Live!, Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 amPosts: 23200Location: Miami, FL

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

degs wrote:

The relevant point is that just because you have an opinion, that doesn't it make it that everyone has to share it.

In 33 years of living, I never realized that. Thank you so much for educating me on this.

Quote:

But thanks for being so full of yourself that you try to pander to my opinion.

Where in my posts did I express that everyone has to share my opinion or pander to yours? I gave mine. It seems you're the one that has issues with things you don't agree with.

_________________

Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:30 am

Big Dave

Phinfever Owner/Admin

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:41 amPosts: 10227Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Dangerous and Stupid

Politics are one of those subjects that can be heated. One thing that I have noticed that no matter how much proof a person can put together to support their cause, chances are that the other person will not change their view.

So, the debate here is good and I don't want anyone to get fed up and leave this forum. Rather, take a couple hour break. The reason I say that is because this thread has grown very fast and I can see people getting frustrated.